The state Supreme Court threw out Pennsylvania’s old maps, ruling they violated the state’s constitution and favored one party over another (in this case, the GOP). Control over district lines is so valuable in the Keystone state, one lawmaker suggested booting out unfriendly judges to maintain the old maps. But instead, a new set of maps has been introduced, and The Washington Post says they’re “just as gerrymandered”(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/11/pennsylvania-republicans-have-drawn-a-new-congressional-map-that-is-just-as-gerrymandered-as-the-old-one/?utm_term=.36e2752f7571) as the last maps.

From a partisan standpoint, in other words, the new map is almost exactly like the old one. Under the existing map, Democratic House candidates have routinely received roughly 50 percent of the statewide popular House vote but only five of the state’s 18 House seats. The new map is unlikely to change that.

State Republicans deny this is a partisan tactic. And since the state constitution gives lawmakers the power to draw maps, why shouldn’t the controlling party do so? After all, both sides can benefit from having control over the maps.

Michael Li, Senior counsel, Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, New York University; @mcpli

William Jay, Partner and co-chair, Goodwin law firm’s Appellate Litigation Practice; a former Assistant to the Solicitor General; former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia; he has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court